APPENDIX A

Citizen Satisfaction Study Report

City of London
JULY 7, 2016

2016 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information
and may not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos.

2016 Ipsos

CONTENTS

03
4
5

2016 Ipsos

Objectives

10

Detailed Findings

11

Most Important Issues

13

Quality of Life

17

City Services Assessment

23

Gap Analysis

27

Value for Tax dollars

31

Experience and Satisfaction with city

Staff

36

Communication

41

Demographic Profile

Methodology

Key Findings

OBJECTIVES
Ipsos Reid is pleased to present the City of London with the results of the 2016 Citizen Satisfaction Survey.
Specific areas explored in the research include (but are not limited to):
Top-of-mind issues in need of attention from local leaders;
Overall impressions of the quality of life in the City of London;
Perceptions of City services, including perceived importance and satisfaction;
Perceptions of value for tax dollar and taxes in general;
Frequency of contact and satisfaction with City Staff; and
Preferred communication needs.

2016 Ipsos

METHODOLOGY
This survey was conducted by telephone and the sample was drawn using random digit dialing (RDD) among City of London
residents.
A total of 500 interviews were completed among residents 18 years of age and older.
The overall survey results have been weighted by age and gender to reflect the population of the City of London.
A sample of 500 interviews produces results which can be considered accurate within 4.4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The margin of error will be larger for subgroups. The sample size asked each of the questions is noted after the question wording at
the bottom of the graph (denoted by n=).
This survey was conducted between May 11 and 21, 2016.
Throughout the report totals may not add to 100% due to rounding or because the question is a multi-select question, where
respondents were permitted to choose more than one response.
Where possible tracking data has been included. Please note that the 2013 data comes from an online survey conducted by
another vendor. Caution should be used in comparing the 2013 online data to the 2015 and 2016 telephone data because of the
methodological differences in the data collection approaches.
Where possible throughout the report the City of Londons findings have been compared to the Canadian National Norm. The Ipsos
National Norm is a reliable average that includes all of the Citizen Satisfaction Research Studies that we have conducted across the
country within the last 5 years.
Significant differences across sub-groups are noted where they exist.

2016 Ipsos

KEY FINDINGS
2016 Ipsos

KEY TAKE AWAYS

Overall, there has been little significant change in the perceptions of City of London residents in most areas. The City continues to be
perceived as providing a good quality of life and receives good ratings on satisfaction with overall level of City services and on most
individual service areas.
Key take aways include:
Transportation, mainly focused on inadequate public transit/ transportation, is now the leading issue on the public agenda, and this
perception is reinforced by the decline in satisfaction with public transit. Public transit continues to be one of the leading drivers of
satisfaction with the overall level of City services.
We also see that development/ infrastructure issues continue to be high on the public agenda. Although majorities are satisfied with
planning issues (land use planning, planning to manage the growth of the City, planning to control the quality of development and
planning for improvements to core areas of the City) and roads, only about one-in-ten are very satisfied with any of these areas.
Moreover, four out of five of these areas are among the leading drivers of satisfaction with overall satisfaction with City services, and
the remaining area (planning to control quality of development) is a secondary driver of overall satisfaction with City services.

2016 Ipsos

KEY FINDINGS (1)

Transportation, infrastructure and economic issues are top mentions for residents.
Significant increase in the number of residents who cite transportation as the issue that should receive the greatest attention from
the City (23%, up from 13% in 2015), with particular attention to inadequate public transit/ transportation (17%, up from 10%).
Development and infrastructure (19%) and economic issues (13%) are also seen as a top priority. (see p.12)
Overall quality of life scores remain on par with National Norm, with strongly positive views also remaining lower.
Overwhelming majority (93%) of residents continue to believe the quality of life in the City of London is good (on par with the
National Norm), including one-third (33%) who say very good. (see p.14)
Satisfaction with the level of City services remains on par with National Norm.
Vast majority (90%) remain satisfied with the overall level of City services, including 30% who are very satisfied. Both figures are on
par with National Norm. However, most residents report that they are somewhat satisfied (61%). (see p.18)
Satisfaction with public transit is down.
Satisfaction with nearly all individual services is similar to 2015, but there has been a significant decline in satisfaction with public
transit. (see p.22) This drop in satisfaction is in keeping with the growing perception that the City should be focusing its attention on
the issue of inadequate public transit/ transportation. (see p.12)

2016 Ipsos

KEY FINDINGS (2)

Roads, land use planning, economic development, public transit, planning to manage growth, parking, cycling lanes and planning
for improvements to Core Areas strongest drivers of overall satisfaction.
Gap analysis (see pp. 24-26) indicates that the City should focus on roads, land use planning, economic development, public transit,
planning to manage growth, parking, cycling lanes and planning for improvements to Core Areas, as boosting scores in these areas
would have greatest impact on satisfaction with overall level of service.
Large majority continue to perceive that they are getting good value for tax dollars, and remains on par with National Norm.
Large majority (79%) believe they are getting good value for their tax dollars based on programs and services they receive from the
City, including two-in-ten (22%) who say they receive very good value Moreover, this latter figure remains on par with the National
Norm (19%). (see p.28)
On balance, residents continue to prefer increased taxes over cutting services, but sizeable number are unsure.
When presented with options, most residents prefer increasing taxes (53%) to cutting services (32%). There is some preference for
increasing taxes to maintain rather than enhance or expand services (31% vs. 22%), but a clear preference for cutting services to
maintain rather than reduce tax levels (23% vs. 9%). More than one-in-ten residents have difficulty in choosing between these options
and chose none of the above or dont know. (see p.30)

2016 Ipsos

KEY FINDINGS (3)

Large majority of residents who had contact with the City are satisfied with their experience.
One-third of residents have had contact with the City in the past 12 months (see p.32). Among these, a large majority are satisfied
(79%), including 46% who are very satisfied (see p.33). These figures are on par with the National Norm. Moreover, there has been a
significant increase in the proportion who had contact who report receiving the service or support they needed (72%, up from 60%),
but it should be noted that 17% say they did not and another 11% (down from 18%) say they only received partial service (see p.34)
Mail and e-mail remain the most preferred methods of receiving information from the City, but telephone is the clear choice for
contacting the City.
Regular mail (37%), followed by e-mail (30%) are the most preferred methods for receiving information from the City (see p.37). There
is a strong preference for using the telephone to contact the city with an inquiry or concern (67%), but less of a consensus when it
comes to conducting business with the City (34% online, 19% telephone and 18% in-person). (see p.38)
Follow-up by City regarding concerns and complaints continues to be seen as very important.
Nine-in-ten believe it is important for the City to follow up with residents regarding concerns or complaints, including 75% who see
this as very important. (see p.40)

2016 Ipsos

DETAILED FINDINGS
2016 Ipsos

10

MOST IMPORTANT
ISSUES: TOP MENTIONS
2016 Ipsos

11

MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES IN LONDON TOP MENTIONS

Since 2015, City of London residents are more likely to focus on transportation, with more than two-in-ten now saying it is the most important issue
facing the City (up 10 points from 2015), including a growing number (almost two-in-ten) who specifically mention inadequate public transit/
transportation. Two-in-ten mention development/ infrastructure, specifically roads or road repair and infrastructure.
2016
NET: Transportation

23%

Inadequate public transit/transportation/GO Transit

Traffic/road congestion/traffic lights

17%
5%

NET: Development/infrastructure

19%

2013

2016

13%

10%

NET: Mayor/city gov't

10%

4%

4%

6%

21%

6%

Roads/Road repair/snow removal/poorly maintained roads

9%

11%

3%

Infrastructure

8%

7%

3%

3%

1%

13%

13%

38%

12%

12%

37%

5%

6%

4%

5%

3%

1%

Development - urban sprawl/loss of greenspace

2%

NET: Economics
Unemployment/ poor job market
Taxes
NET: Poverty

2015

2015

4%

4%

22%

Fiscal management/govt. spending/budget

2%

3%

1%

The dam/dam issue

3%

ENVIRONMENT/POLLUTION

2%

3%

1%

Downtown core development

2%

4%

2%

Economic growth/Attract, retain businesses/Manufacturing

2%

3%

Housing - lack of affordable housing

2%

2%

n/a

Hospitals/health care

2%

1%

n/a

2%

2%

13%

5%

Nothing
Poverty

3%

1%

1%

Homelessness

3%

2%

4%

Don't know / Refused

10%

Q1. To begin, in your view, what are the most important issues facing the City of London? That is, what issues should receive the greatest attention from City Council?
Base: All respondents 2013 (n=501); 2015 (n=500); 2016 (500)
2016 Ipsos

2013

*Other mentions less than 2% not shown on graph.

12

QUALITY OF LIFE
2016 Ipsos

13

OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE

An overwhelming majority of London residents believe that the quality of life in London is good (93%). Among these, six in ten believe the
quality of life is good versus one-third who believe it is very good. There was a significant change between 2013 and 2015 in overall quality
of life scores, but this may have been impacted on by a change in scale and methodology. However, the figure is holding up this year (using
the same methodology).
The overall quality of life in the City of London is on par with the National Norm (95%), however, the City continues to score significantly
lower than the National Norm in the proportion who rate it as very good (33% vs. 45%, respectively).
2016

2016: 93%

2015

2013

Norm

Norm: 95%
2015: 95%
2013: 81%

60%

2016: 6%

64% 67%

Norm: 4%
2015: 4%
2013: 19%

50%

45%
33% 31%

15%

13%
5%
Very Good

Good

4%
Poor

3%

1%

1%

4%

1%

Very Poor

Q2. How would you rate the overall quality of Life in the City of London today? Would you say it is.
Base: All respondents 2013 (n=501); 2015 (n=500); 2016 (n=500).
2016 Ipsos

14

OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE BY SUB-GROUPS

Large majorities across all demographic subgroups rate the quality of life in London as good. However, perceptions of a very good quality of
life are positively correlated with age in other words, the older the resident, the more likely they are to perceive the quality of life to be
very good.
Those living in households with two people are more likely than those living in a one-person household or in a household with three or
more persons to perceive London as having a very good quality of life.

Overall Quality of Life

Total

ABCD

Age

Living in Household

Total

18-34

35-54

55+

3+

Sample size =

500

136

179

185

89

214

189

Good
(Top 2 Score)

93%

89%

94%

95%

90%

92%

94%

Very Good

33%

23%

33%

43% BC

28%

41% EG

29%

Good

60%

66% D

61%

52%

62%

52%

65% F

Poor

5%

5%

5%

4%

6%

6%

3%

Very Poor

1%

3%

1%

1%

1%

2%

Letters in the lower right hand corner indicate a significantly higher score than the segment with the associated letter.

Q2. How would you rate the overall quality of Life in the City of London today? Would you say it is.
Base: All respondents 2016 (n=500).
2016 Ipsos

15

TOP MENTIONS FOR OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE

As seen earlier, an overwhelming majority of residents (93% or n=465) perceive the quality of life in the city as good. The main reasons
provided are because there is lots to do, it is a good/friendly city, and because it is a safe city. Since 2015, fewer residents mention
affordable living. Few residents (n=29) think the quality of life is poor, with the most common reasons being poverty/homelessness,
unemployment and lack of jobs, followed by high prices for utilities/ groceries and wages (being mostly at minimum wage).
Why Quality of Life is Good

2016
Lots to do (Events, activities, amenities, culture, entertainment, etc)
Good /Friendly/ Nice City
Safe city/ Low crime
Right size/ Not too big
Environment - Clean, green, beautiful
Quality of life/ Good standard of living/ Better than other cities
Nature trails/ Parks
Good services (police/fire)/ Social programs
Convenience - Everything you need is here
Good income/ Have a job here
Healthcare
No issues/ Problems
Easy to get around (not over-crowded)
Affordable living
Good schools
Pleasant neighbourhood(s)
New Council/ fresh ideas/ well managed
Good housing market
Used to it/ I already live here

2015
20%
18%
17%

17%
20%
16%
12%
12%
10%
7%
8%
10%
6%
5%
5%
3%
11%
6%
3%
n/a
n/a
4%

10%
10%
10%
10%
9%
8%
8%
8%
6%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%

Q3a. Why do you think the quality of Life is [good/ very good]? Q3b. Why do you think the quality of life is [poor/ very poor]?
Base: Overall quality of life good/ very good (n=465); Overall quality of life poor/ very poor (n=29**) *Please note that only top mentions of 5% or more are shown on each graph.
2016 Ipsos

**Very small sample size

16

CITY SERVICES
ASSESSMENT
2016 Ipsos

17

SATISFACTION WITH THE OVERALL LEVEL OF CITY SERVICES

An overwhelming majority of London residents are satisfied with the level of service delivery from the City, with most being somewhat
satisfied (61%) and three-in-ten being very satisfied.
Overall satisfaction, including the proportion who are very satisfied, with London City services is on par with the Canadian National Norm.
There are no significant differences across demographic subgroups in the proportion who are very satisfied with the overall level of City
services.
2016
Very satisfied

2015

Norm
30%
26%
31%
61%
66%
61%

Somewhat satisfied

Not very satisfied

2016: 90%

6%
4%
6%

Not at all satisfied

2%
1%
1%

Don't know

3%
2%

Norm: 91%
2015: 92%

2016: 7%
Norm: 9%
2015: 6%

Q4. Please tell me how satisfied you are with the overall level of City services provided by the City of London on a scale of very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied
and not at all satisfied? And how about?
Base: All respondents 2015 (n=500); 2016 (n=500).
2016 Ipsos

18

SATISFACTION WITH ASPECTS OF CITY SERVICES

Large majorities of residents are satisfied with quality, accessibility, and the time it takes to receive services from the City of London.
However, most continue to be only somewhat satisfied with aspects of City services. Residents are least satisfied with the timeliness of
service delivery, but even on this aspect a majority express satisfaction.
There are no significant differences across demographic subgroups in the proportions who are very satisfied with various aspects of City
services.
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not very satisfied
Not at all satisfied
Don't know % Very/Somewhat Satisfied

Quality of service delivery

Accessibility of services

Time it takes to receive services

27%

31%

25%

57%

52%

54%

7% 7%

7% 7%

9%

10%

2016

2015

84%

87%

83%

85%

79%

79%

Q4. Please tell me how satisfied you are with the overall level of City services provided by the City of London on a scale of very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied
and not at all satisfied? And how about?
Base: All respondents 2015 (n=500); 2016 (n=500).
*Please note that ratings less than 3% are not labelled on the graph.
2016 Ipsos

19

SATISFACTION WITH INDIVIDUAL SERVICES (List of services continues on next slide)

Overall satisfaction scores are relatively high for City services, with the majority of residents indicating they are at least very or somewhat
satisfied with 29 of 34 services tested in the survey. The City services with the highest satisfaction scores where more than half of residents
are very satisfied are: drinking water, public libraries, protection services, parks and green spaces, garbage collection, and recycling
collection. Between four and five in ten are satisfied with recreation facilities, public health, recreation, sports and leisure programs, leaf
and yard waste collection and urban forestry.
Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Not very satisfied

Drinking water

61%

Public Libraries

60%

Protection Services such as fire, police and ambulance

59%

Not at all satisfied

% Very/Somewhat Satisfied
2016
2015
91%
92%

Don't know
30%
27%

5%
11%

87%

88%

3%

93%

89%

92%

93%

34%

Parks and other green spaces

56%

Garbage collection

54%

32%

9%

3%

86%

86%

Recycling collection

54%

34%

8% 2%
3%

88%

89%

4% 7%

88%

86%

8% 3% 7%

82%

84%

81%

81%

8% 3% 8%

81%

80%

12% 3%5%

81%

78%

Recreation facilities

36%

46%

42%

Public Health

43%

39%

Recreation, sports and leisure programs

43%

38%

Leaf & Yard Waste Green Week Collection

41%

40%

Urban Forestry

39%

42%

4%

5%1% 13%

Q5. Now, please rate how satisfied you are with the services provided by the City of London, using a scale of very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all
satisfied.
Base: All Respondents 2015 (n=500); 2016 (n=500).
*Please note that ratings less than 3% are not labelled on the graph.
2016 Ipsos

20

SATISFACTION WITH INDIVIDUAL SERVICES (List of services continues on next slide)

About three-in-ten residents are very satisfied with sewers, arts and culture, animal services, stormwater management, snow clearing and
removal. One-quarter of residents are very satisfied with City owned golf courses, by-law enforcement and heritage buildings/ landscapes,
and two-in-ten are very satisfied with childrens services, cycling lanes, environmental information and parking. However, between four and
five-in-ten residents didnt know how to rate the satisfaction of childrens services and golf courses this may be in part because fewer
residents have used these services.
Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Not very satisfied

Not at all satisfied

Don't know

Sewers/ Wastewater Treatment

Arts and Culture

31%

46%

31%

45%

Animal Services

31%

37%

Stormwater Management

29%

42%

11% 4%

Snow Cleaning and Removal

28%

45%

16%

City owned golf courses

By-law Enforcement

27%

Heritage Buildings/ Landscapes

20%

Cycling lanes

19%

Environmental programs

18%

Parking

18%

46%
38%

66%

14%

72%

72%

10% 2%

73%

76%

48%

49%

70%

65%

11% 4% 12%

73%

71%

43%

49%

53%

58%

30%

64%

78%

56%

60%

49%
8% 5%

6%

39%

68%

24%

49%
30%

77%

6%

44%

23%

75%

3% 14%

21%

26%

Childrens Services

10% 4% 10%

% Very/Somewhat Satisfied
2016
2015
77%
73%

21%
14%
24%

17%

9%
4%

12%
17%

13%

6%

Q5. Now, please rate how satisfied you are with the services provided by the City of London, using a scale of very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all
satisfied.
Base: All Respondents 2015 (n=500); 2016 (n=500).
*Please note that ratings less than 3% are not labelled on the graph.
2016 Ipsos

**Was 3 separate categories in 2015

21

SATISFACTION WITH INDIVIDUAL SERVICES (End of list)

About one-in-ten are satisfied with long term care, economic development, public transit, planning for improvements to core areas,
planning to manage growth, land use planning, social/ affordable housing, planning to control the quality of development , social services,
building permits and roads. Sizeable proportions of between one-quarter and half are unable to offer a satisfaction score for social/
affordable housing, social services and building permits. In these areas, this may be a product of infrequent exposure to or use of these
programs. Since 2015, overall satisfaction is down by 10 points in the area of public transit.
% Very/Somewhat Satisfied
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not very satisfied
Not at all satisfied
Don't know
Long term Care

15%

Economic Development

14%

Public Transit
Planning for improvements to core areas of the City

14%

36%

15%

5%

46%

29%

23%

37%

19%

7%

8%

22%

13%

45%

21%

8%

Planning to manage the growth of the City

13%

45%

21%

10%

Land Use Planning

13%

Social/ Affordable Housing

13%

Planning to control the quality of development in the City

12%

Social Services

12%

Building Permits

11%

Roads

10%

like Downtown, Old East Village and SoHo

41%

21%

34%

18%

45%
39%
29%

14%

44%

8%

7%

13%
11%
17%

27%

24%

6%

6%

29%

7% 5%

10%

13%

47%
32%

14%

2016

2015

51%

48%

60%

58%

50%

60%

58%

n/a

57%

n/a

54%

50%

47%

46%

58%

n/a

51%

52%

41%

39%

54%

53%

Q5. Now, please rate how satisfied you are with the services provided by the City of London, using a scale of very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all
satisfied.
Base: All Respondents 2015 (n=500); 2016 (n=500).
*Please note that ratings less than 3% are not labelled on the graph.
2016 Ipsos

22

GAP ANALYSIS
2016 Ipsos

23

USING THE GAP ANALYSIS

The Gap analysis that follows (p. 26) shows the difference between how important various City services are to residents and how
satisfied they are with the services. Importance scores are plotted horizontally across the bottom of the chart (along the X-axis).
Satisfaction scores are plotted vertically (along the Y-axis). Importance scores are derived from correlation analysis with overall City
service satisfaction and satisfaction scores represent overall stated satisfaction (very & somewhat) with each of the individual City
services.
Typically, it is most advantageous to focus on improving services that are of high importance to residents but where satisfaction is
relatively low. However, in some instances it can also make strategic sense to focus on lower importance items if the City can see
that a big difference can be made.

On the graph, four areas are identified:

Primary Areas for Improvement services that are considered very important, but with lower satisfaction scores. The focus here is
on improving these services to increase satisfaction. This is slated as the primary area for improvement because the correlation
analysis identifies that these services are the strongest drivers of satisfaction. If the City can increase satisfaction this will have the
largest impact on overall perceptions of City services.
Secondary Areas for Improvement services that are relatively less important, with the lowest satisfaction scores. This should be
the secondary area of focus to improve the satisfaction scores.
Primary Areas for Maintenance services of relatively high importance and high satisfaction. The focus here is on maintaining the
current level of service and satisfaction.
Secondary Areas for Maintenance services with lower importance scores but high satisfaction scores. The focus here should to
be to maintain satisfaction levels.
2016 Ipsos

24

UNDERSTANDING THE GAP ANALYSIS

Primary areas for improvement are:

Roads

Land Use Planning

Economic
Development

Public Transit

Planning to Manage Growth

Parking

Cycling lanes

Planning for Improvements

to Core Areas

Roads, land use planning, economic development, public transit, planning to manage growth, parking, cycling
lanes, and planning for improvements to core areas should be the primary areas for improvement for the City of
London. These services have high derived importance scores and are some of the strongest drivers of satisfaction
with the Citys overall level of service.
Secondary areas for improvement are:

Planning to Control Quality of Development

Social/ Affordable Housing

Additional services that fall within the secondary area for improvement that should be areas of focus include: planning to control
quality of development and social/affordable housing.
2016 Ipsos

25

GAP ANALYSIS
Primary Areas for Improvement
Secondary Areas for Improvement
Primary Areas for Maintenance
Secondary Areas for Maintenance

High

Satisfaction

Protective services such as

fire, police and ambulance
Recreation, sports
Public Libraries
and leisure programs Parks and Other Green Spaces
City-owned golf courses
Recreation Facilities Drinking Water
Recycling collection
Animal Services
Garbage collection
Public Health
Arts and Culture
Children's Services
Leaf & Yard Waste
Sewers/ Wastewater Treatment
Urban Forestry Stormwater Management
By-law Enforcement
Heritage Buildings/ Landscapes
Building Permits
Environmental Information
Snow Clearing and Removal
Long Term Care
Social Services
Social/ Affordable Housing
Planning to control quality of development

Planning for improvements to core areas

Economic Development
Cycling lanes
Public Transit
Land Use Planning
Planning to manage growth of City
Parking
Roads

Low
2016 Ipsos

Importance
*Please note that for the gap analysis, the dont know responses have been removed

High
26

VALUE FOR TAX

DOLLARS
2016 Ipsos

27

VALUE FOR TAX DOLLARS

Eight-in-ten residents believe that the value for tax dollars based on the programs and services they receive from the City of London is at
least good, including two-in-ten who believe it is very good. After a sharp increase between 2013 and 2015 in the proportion who believe
the value for tax dollars is very good, this figure has remained essentially unchanged in 2016. Similarly, after a sharp decline in the same
time period in the number who think they are receiving a fairly poor value for tax dollar, this figure is essentially unchanged in 2016. The
perceived value for tax dollars for the City of London is on par with the National Norm.

2016: 79%

2016

2015

2013

Norm: 79%
2015: 80%
2013: 60%

Norm

2016: 19%

57% 59% 57% 60%

Norm: 19%
2015: 16%
2013: 40%
32%

22% 21%

19%

14% 12%

14%

3%
Very good

Fairly good

Fairly poor

5% 4% 7% 5%
Very poor

3% 4%
Don't know

**Note: Dont know was not an option in 2013

Q6. Thinking about all the programs and services you receive from the City of London, would you say that overall you get good value or poor value for your tax dollars? (Is that
very or fairly good/poor value?)
Base: All respondents 2013 (n=501); 2015 ( n=500); 2016 (n=500).
2016 Ipsos

28

VALUE FOR TAX DOLLARS BY SUB-GROUPS

Residents who are significantly more likely than their counterparts to say they get very good value for their tax dollars include those who
have lived in London 20 years or longer.

Value for Tax Dollars

Total
Total

<20 years

20+ years

500

105

320

79%

81%

78%

Very Good

22%

14%

24% B

Fairly Good

57%

68%

54%

Fairly Poor

14%

12%

15%

Very Poor

5%

5%

5%

Sample size =
Good
(Top 2 Score)

ABCD

Years in London

Letters in the lower right hand corner indicate a significantly higher score than the segment associated with the letter.

Q6. Thinking about all the programs and services you receive from the City of London, would you say that overall you get good value or poor value for your tax dollars? (Is that
very or fairly good/poor value?)
Base: All respondents 2016 (n=500).
2016 Ipsos

29

BALANCE OF TAXATION AND SERVICES

In balancing taxation and service delivery levels, residents would rather the City of London increase taxes (53%) rather than cut services
(32%). When it comes to increasing taxes, there is some preference for increasing taxes to maintain services at current levels over
increasing them to enhance or expand services (31% vs. 22%). When it comes to cutting services, there is a clear preference for cutting
services to maintain the current tax level over cutting them to reduce taxes (23% vs. 9%). More than one-in-ten do not choose any of these
options or offer no opinion. These figures have not changed significantly from 2015.

% Increase taxes:
2016: 53%
2015: 54%
2013: 53%

22% 23%

30%

31% 32%

2016

2015

% Cut services:
2016: 32%
2015: 29%
2013: 45%
24%

23% 21% 25%

20%
9%

Increase taxes to
enhance or expand
City services

2013

Increase taxes to
maintain services at
current levels

8%

Cut services to
Cut services to reduce
maintain current tax
taxes
level

9% 12%
None of the above

6%

5%

1%

Don't know

**Note: None of the above was not an option in 2013

Q7. Municipal property taxes are the primary way to pay for services provided by the City of London. To help the City of London balance taxation and service delivery levels,
which of the following four options would you most like the City to pursue?
Base: All respondents 2013 (n=501); 2015 (n=500); 2016 (n=500).
2016 Ipsos

30

EXPERIENCE &
SATISFACTION WITH
CITY STAFF
2016 Ipsos

31

CONTACT WITH CITY IN LAST 12 MONTHS

One-third of residents continue to indicate that they had personally contacted the City or dealt with one of the City of Londons employees
in the last 12 months.

Yes

No

Don't know

2016

33%

67%

2015

34%

65%

Q8. In the last 12 months, have you personally contacted or dealt with the City of London or one of its employees?
Base: All respondents 2015 (n=500); 2016 (n=500)
*Please note that ratings less than 3% are not labelled on the graph.
2016 Ipsos

32

SATISFACTION LEVELS AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH THE CITY
Eight-in-ten residents who had contact with the City were satisfied with the overall service that they received about half of which were
very satisfied.
Among those who contacted the City, those aged 35 and older are significantly more likely than those aged 18 to 34 to be very satisfied
with their service experience.
Overall satisfaction levels with services received are on par with the National Norm (although continues to be directionally lower on the
proportion who are very satisfied within the margin of error).
2016

2015
46%
47%

Very satisfied

33%

Somewhat satisfied

Not satisfied

Not at all satisfied

Satisfied
2016: 79%
2015: 74%

26%
8%
14% Not Satisfied
12%
11%

2016: 20%
2015: 26%

Q9. And thinking of the last time you contacted the City of London, how satisfied were you with the overall service you received? Would you say you were...
Base: Contacted the City of London 2015 (n=172); 2016 (n=166).
2016 Ipsos

33

RECEIVED NEEDED SERVICE OR SUPPORT

Among those residents who had contact with the City, seven-in-ten say they received all of the service or support they needed. Another
one-in-ten say they partially received what they needed, while about two-in-ten say they did not receive the service or support that they
required. Since 2015, there has been a significant increase of 12 points in the number who say they received all of the service or support
they needed.

Yes

Yes, partially

2016

2015

Q10. In the end, did you receive the service or support you needed?
Base: Contacted City of London 2015 (n=172); 2016 (n=166).
2016 Ipsos

No

Don't know

72%

60%

11%

18%

17%

21%

*Please note that ratings less than 3% are not labelled on the graph.

34

LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH SERVICE EXPERIENCE

Among residents who interacted with the City, overwhelming majorities of eight-in-ten or more think the staff were courteous,
knowledgeable, and treated them fairly. A smaller number, but still a majority of more than six-in-ten, agree that City staff went the extra
mile to help them get the services and support they needed. These figures have not changed significantly since 2015.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat agree

Staff were courteous

67%

You were treated fairly

22%

53%

29%

Don't know

20%

64%

Staff were knowledgeable

Staff went the extra mile to help you

Strongly agree

31%

35%

% Strongly/
Somewhat Agree

17%

2016

2015

87%

90%

86%

83%

7% 6% 3%

84%

86%

12%

64%

64%

6%

5%

6% 7%

7%

Q11. Continuing to think about your most recent experiences with the City of London, would you say that you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly
disagree that [Insert statement]?
Base: Contacted City of London: (n=Varies).
*Please note that ratings less than 3% are not labelled on the graph.
2016 Ipsos

35

COMMUNICATIONS
2016 Ipsos

36

PREFERRED METHOD OF RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM CITY

Regular mail (37%), followed by e-mail (30%) are the most preferred methods for receiving information from the City of London. Mention of
local television is down significantly by four points since 2015.
Residents under the age of 55 are significantly more likely than their older counterparts to prefer to receive information via email, while
residents 35 and older are more likely than their younger counterparts to prefer to receive information via a local newspaper.
2016

2015
37%
33%
30%
27%

Regular Mail
E-mail
Local newspaper
City website
Telephone
Local television
Local radio
In-person at an office or service counter
Other
Don't know

8%
8%
7%
8%
7%
5%
4%
8%
2%
3%
2%
3%
4%
1%
3%

QC1. Thinking about your information needs, what is your preferred method for receiving information from the City of London?
Base: All respondents 2015 (n=500; 2016 (n=500).
2016 Ipsos

37

PREFERRED METHOD OF CONTACTING THE CITY OF LONDON

When it comes to contacting the City with an inquiry or concern, there is a strong preference to do this over the telephone, with almost
seven-in-ten residents choosing this method of contact. Two-in-ten would prefer to do this via e-mail. Women are more likely than men to
prefer contacting the City via email.
When it comes to conducting business with the City, residents are more divided but the largest share prefer to conduct business with the
City online (34%), followed by telephone (19%) and in-person (18%). Women are more likely than men to prefer to conduct business with the
City over the telephone. Residents under the age of 55 are more likely than their older counterparts to prefer to conduct business with the
City online, while those aged 35 and older are more likely than their younger counterparts to prefer to conduct business via regular mail.
Conducting business (such as bill payments,
Contacting the City with an inquiry or concern
service registration and permits) with the City
2016

2015

Telephone
18%
19%

E-mail
Online

4%
5%

In-person at an office or service

counter

4%
4%

Regular mail
Other
Don't know

2013
67%
68%
49%

31%

27%
14%

3%
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
2%
2%
0%

Telephone
E-mail

2016
2015
19%
18%
11%
11%
34%
30%

Online
In-person at an office or service
counter
Regular mail
Other
Don't know

18%
21%
4%
7%
5%
4%
10%
9%

QC2. And, what is your preferred method of [insert]?

Base: All respondents 2013; (n=501); 2015 (n=500); 2016 (n=500).
2016 Ipsos

38

LEVEL OF INTEREST IN RECEIVING COMMUNITY INFORMATION

About half of residents are interested in receiving information from the City about their community, including services, programs and
events, via e-mail. This proportion is down marginally (within the margin of error) and the number who are uninterested is up significantly
by seven points.
More than four-in-ten are interested in receiving community information from the City via social media; this figure has not changed
significantly from 2015.
Those under the age of 55 are more likely than those 55 and older to be very interested in receiving this information via social media.

Social Media

E-mail
2016
Very interested

26%
29%

Somewhat interested

17%
17%

Not very interested

36%
29%

Not at all interested

Don't know

2015
20%
23%

2%
3%

2016
Interested
2016: 46%
2015: 52%

2015
17%
19%

Very interested

26%
28%

Somewhat interested

Uninterested
2016: 52%
2015: 45%

13%
19%

Not very interested

41%
31%

Not at all interested

Don't know

Interested
2016: 43%
2015: 47%

Uninterested
2016: 55%
2015: 50%

3%
3%

QC3. How interested are you in receiving information about your community including services, programs and events via [insert]? Are you?
Base: All respondents 2015 (n=500); 2016 (n=500).
2016 Ipsos

39

IMPORTANCE OF THE CITY FOLLOWING-UP REGARDING CONCERNS & COMPLAINTS

The overwhelming majority of residents continue to believe that the City of London should follow-up with residents regarding concerns or
complaints they made to the City, including three-quarters who believe it is very important. Since 2015, there has been a significant fourpoint increase in the proportion who think follow-up by the City is not important.
2016

2015
75%
76%

Very important
15%
16%

Somewhat important

Not very important

3%
3%

Not at all important

5%
2%

Don't know

Important
2016: 90%
2015: 92%

Not important
2016: 8%
2015: 4%

2%
3%

QC4. How important is it that the city follow-up regarding the concerns or complaint you made to the city? Would you say...?
Base: All respondents (n=500).
2016 Ipsos

40

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
2016 Ipsos

41

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Number of People Living in Home

Gender
Male
Female

47%
53%
Age

18 34
35 54
55 and over

31%
35%
34%

Highest Education Level Completed

Less than high school
High school graduate or equivalent
Some/completed trade/technical school
Some/completed community college
Some/completed university
Graduate/professional studies

5%
19%
2%
24%
29%
17%

Annual Household Income Before Taxes

Less than $25,000
$25,000 to less than $50,000
$50,000 to less than $75,000
$75,000 to less than $100,000
$100,000 to less than $150,000
$150,000 or more
2016 Ipsos

8%
13%
15%
11%
13%
9%

One
Two
Three
Four
Five or more

17%
42%
17%
13%
9%

Number of Children Under the Age of 18 in Home

0
1-2
3 or more
Dont know/ Refused

70%
20%
5%
5%

Number of Years Living in London

Less than 1 year
1 to less than 5 years
5 to less than 10 years
10 to less than 20 years
20 years or more
Own or Operate a Business
Yes
No
Dont know

1%
5%
4%
12%
77%
8%
91%
1%

Rent or Own Home

Own
Rent

78%
20%
42

Contacts

Diana MacDonald
Director

2016 Ipsos

43

ABOUT IPSOS

GAME CHANGERS

Ipsos ranks third in the global research industry. With a

strong presence in 87 countries, Ipsos employs more than
16,000 people and has the ability to conduct research
programs in more than 100 countries. Founded in France in
1975, Ipsos is controlled and managed by research
professionals. They have built a solid Group around a multispecialist positioning Media and advertising research;
Marketing research; Client and employee relationship
management; Opinion & social research; Mobile, Online,
Offline data collection and delivery.

At Ipsos we are passionately curious about people, markets,

brands and society. We deliver information and analysis that
makes our complex world easier and faster to navigate and
inspires our clients to make smarter decisions.

Ipsos is listed on Eurolist NYSE Euronext. The company is

part of the SBF 120 and the Mid-60 index and is eligible for
the Deferred Settlement Service (SRD).
ISIN code FR0000073298, Reuters ISOS.PA, Bloomberg IPS:FP
www.ipsos.com

2016 Ipsos

We believe that our work is important. Security, simplicity,

speed and substance applies to everything we do.
Through specialisation, we offer our clients a unique depth of
knowledge and expertise. Learning from different experiences
gives us perspective and inspires us to boldly call things into
question, to be creative.
By nurturing a culture of collaboration and curiosity, we attract
the highest calibre of people who have the ability and desire
to influence and shape the future.
GAME CHANGERS our tagline summarises our ambition.

44